H EALTHCARE R EFORM AND THE C ASE M ANAGER Nancy Skinner, RN-BC, CCM.
Prepared for · Document Control Summary Document Revisions Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report,...
Transcript of Prepared for · Document Control Summary Document Revisions Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report,...
COPPING RDS SURFACE & GROUNDWATER
MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT
SIX-MONTHLY EVENT, July 2019
Prepared for:
Southern Waste Solutions
August 2019
Document Control Summary
Document Revisions
Report Title Copping RDS SGWMP Report, Six-monthly Event, July
2019
Project Manager Dr Terry Walker
AquaSci Reference T001 CRDS SGWMP 2018-2019
Electronic File Name Status Prepared by Authorised Date
T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-DR1
DR1 Dr T. Walker Dr T. Walker 28 Aug 2019
T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-FR
FR Dr T Walker Dr T. Walker 29 Aug 2019
Document Distribution
Electronic File Name Status Issued to Format Issued by
T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-DR1
DR1 Ms C. Bell
Southern Waste Solutions Word
Dr T. Walker
28 Aug 2019
T001-RE35-CoppingRDS-SGWMP-R-SME-July-2019-FR
FR Ms C. Bell
Southern Waste Solutions pdf
Dr T. Walker
29 Aug 2019
For further information on this report, contact:
Name: Dr Terry Walker
Title: Principal
Phone: 03 6231 1355
Mobile: 0409 863 590
E-mail: [email protected]
www.aquasci.com.au
AquaSci Report: AquaSci (2019f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report Six-monthly Event July 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 -
54, Appendices A – G.
Cover Photo: Dr Terry Walker, 16 July 2019
Top: SS6, pool downstream of sill. Below: C-Cell
© AquaSci 2019
This document contains confidential information intended for the sole use of AquaSci’s client and may be published or
circulated to third parties at the sole discretion of the client.
The information presented in this document is deemed by AquaSci to be reliable and correct at the time of writing, but no
guarantees are made in respect of the accuracy or completeness of source information. As this document has been
compiled to address the specific needs of our client in respect of their current project, it may not necessarily address the
needs of purposes of third parties. Third parties acting on this information do so entirely at their own risk and AquaSci and
its employees accept no liability for any losses or damages incurred as a result of actions taken (or not taken) on the basis
of information contained herein.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, 2019
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
2 MONITORING SITES ................................................................................................................. 2
3 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES ................................................................................................ 4
4 RESULTS AND COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 7
4.1 RAINFALL ............................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 LEACHATE/NON-LEACHATE RATIOS ......................................................................................... 9
4.3 SURFACE SITES ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 GROUNDWATER SITES .......................................................................................................... 15
4.5 PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS) ......................................... 17
5 OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 20
6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A: SS RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES ......................................................................... 28
APPENDIX B: BH RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES ......................................................................... 31
APPENDIX C: PFAS RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX D: SITE LOCATIONS/DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................ 38
APPENDIX E: SS + BH L/N RATIOS ............................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX F: BORE SAMPLING DATA ......................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX G: SITE PHOTOS 16/17 JULY 2019 ............................................................................ 49
List of Tables
TABLE 1: PFOS AND PFOA DRAFT GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION IN
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 5
TABLE 2: ANZG (2018) DGVS FOR ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND OTHER RELEVANT
GUIDELINES 6
TABLE 3: DATA SUMMARY CRDS SURFACE SITES FOR JULY 2019 12
TABLE 4: DATA SUMMARY CRDS GROUNDWATER BORES FOR JULY 2019 13
TABLE 5: DATA SUMMARY CRDS GROUNDWATER BORES FOR JULY 2019 14
TABLE 6: PFAS LEVELS IN SS1, 2017 - 2019 18
TABLE 7: MOST PREVALENT PFAS IN B-CELL LEACHATE AT CRDS AND 27 AUSTRALIAN
LANDFILLS (GALEN ET AL 2017) 19
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, 2019
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: COPPING RDS SURFACE & GROUNDWATER MONITORING SITES 3
FIGURE 2: 2019 MONTHLY RAINFALL AND MONTHLY AVERAGES, COPPING (YAXLEY ESTATE) 8
FIGURE 3: DAILY RAINFALL AT COPPING (YAXLEY ESTATE), APRIL - JULY 2019 8
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 i
Acknowledgements
The provision of information relating to this report by the following is gratefully acknowledged:
► Graeme French, Mick Barker (SWS) – on site assistance, background
information.
► Landfill operational personnel (Downer EDi Works) – on-site information and
assistance.
► Ms Fiona Hosking – field assistance.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 ii
Glossary and Acronyms
General ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines ANZECC Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council ANZG Australian and New Zealand Guidelines, 2018 ARMCANZ Agricultural & Resource Management Council of Australia & New
Zealand DGV Default Guideline Value (ANZG, 2018) DPIWE Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy TDGV Toxicity Default Guideline Value (ANZG, 2018) Sites BH Bore Hole (groundwater monitoring bore) BIA B-Cells: Irrigation Area Bores (BH12A and BH12B) CRDS Copping Refuse Disposal Site (= Copping RDS) CRT Carlton River Tributary – receiving waters for catchment including
landfill (SS6 and SS7) CLBP C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond (SS9) CLBP-SP C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond – Seepage Pit (SS8) CMLP C-Cell Main Leachate Pond (SS10) CMLP-SP C-Cell Main Leachate Pond – Seepage Pit (SS11) PLP Primary Leachate Pond (SS1) PLP-SP Primary Leachate Pond Liner Underdrain Pit (Seepage Pit) (SS4) PSWP Primary Stormwater Pond (SS3) PSWPD Primary Stormwater Pond Drain (SS5) SSWP Secondary Stormwater Pond (SS2) SSWP-SP Secondary Stormwater Pond – Seepage Pit (SS14) SHH Specific Hydraulic Head – standing water level in a bore SGWMP Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program SS Surface Site (surface water monitoring site) BAC9 B-Cells: Adjacent Cell 9 Bores (BH10A, BH10B) BNC9 B-Cells: Near Cell 9 Bores (BH10C, BH10D) BNC10 B-Cells: Near Cell 10 Bore (BH23) BPLP B-Cells: Primary Leachate Pond Bore (BH7) CLN C-Cell: Leachate Ponds Bore North (BH1) CLW C-Cell: Leachate Ponds Bore West (BH19) CSW C-Cell: Southwestern bores (BH14A and BH14B) CW C-Cell: Western bores (BH15A and BH15B) DBNW Downgradient Bore Northwest (BH2) URE Upgradient Reference Bore East (BH18A and BH18B) (C-Cell) URNE Upgradient Reference Bore Northeast (BH22) URS Upgradient Reference Bore South (BH13) URSW Upgradient Reference Bore Southwest (BH21) WBN Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores North (BH25A and BH25B) WBS Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores South (BH24A and BH24B)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 iii
Parameters Measured Al Aluminium As Arsenic BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene = VOC Cd Cadmium Cl Chloride COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CN Cyanide (Total) Cr Chromium Cu Copper DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon EC Electrical Conductivity E. coli Escherichia coli Fe Iron Hg Mercury LOR Limit of reporting K Potassium Mg Magnesium Mn Manganese Na Sodium Ni Nickel TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons OCP Organochlorine Pesticides = Organochlorines (OC) OPP Organophosphate Pesticides = Organophosphates (OP) Ortho-P Orthophosphate or Reactive phosphate as P PAH Poly-aromatic Hydrocarbons Pb Lead PCB Poly-chlorinated Biphenyls PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkylated substances (see PFOA/PFAS) PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctane sulphonate Redox Reduction-Oxidation Potential S Sulphur Soluble Metals Metals present following 0.45 µm filtration and acidification; often
used interchangeably with the term “dissolved metals” TDS Total Dissolved Solids = NFR (Non-filterable Residue) Total Metals All metals present, including those that are sediment bound. In
turbid samples levels may be much greater than soluble metal levels. In clean samples, total and soluble (dissolved) levels may be similar.
TSS Total Suspended Solids = SS (Suspended Solids) TN Total Nitrogen as N TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen = oxidisable N = organic N + total ammonia Total Ammonia Total of all forms – ammonia + ammonium as N TAN Total Ammonia Nitrogen as N TP Total Phosphorus as P V Vanadium VOC Volatile Organic Compounds Zn Zinc
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 iv
Units m bgl Metres below ground level mg/L Milligrams per litre mV Millivolts (Redox Potential) org/100mL Organisms per 100 millilitres (Escherichia coli) µg/L Micrograms per litre µS/cm Micro Siemens per centimetre (EC)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 1
1 Introduction
The Copping Refuse Disposal Site (henceforth referred to as the CRDS) is a Category 2
Landfill (Tasmanian Landfill Sustainability Guide, DPIPWE, 2004) located approximately
3.5 km southwest of the township of Copping, south eastern Tasmania. Operations
commenced in August 2001. Construction of a Category 3 “C-Cell” has recently been
completed, and disposal of waste commenced on 19 November 2018 (C. Bell, pers.
comm., 29 January 2019).
The following report contains the results of the six-monthly sampling event performed by
AquaSci on 16/17 July 2019, together with summary tables and brief interpretative notes.
This forms part of the ongoing CRDS Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program
(SGWMP).
Surface and groundwater monitoring commenced at the CRDS in 2001 and is performed
quarterly. Previous water quality monitoring reports are listed in the references section.
The current six-monthly event was postponed for one month pending the arrival of a rock
crusher on the CRDS site in June 2019 and the construction of all-weather tracks to the
new bores constructed in February 2019. Unfortunately, the first section of the crusher
did not arrive until 15 July, and access tracks were not constructed at the time of
sampling, which followed approximately 20 mm of rainfall over the previous 4 days.
Details concerning sampling methods and the parameters tested may be found in
previous annual reports (e.g. AquaSci, 2015a). Sampling is performed in accordance with
Australian/New Zealand Standard 5667 (Standards Australia, 1998) and specific
directions from the testing laboratory (ALS, Scoresby), where relevant.
Water quality samples were collected successfully from a total of nine of twelve surface
sites on 16 July and nineteen of twenty groundwater monitoring bores on 16/17 July
2019.
Both total and soluble metal levels were determined for all surface sites and groundwater
bore sites. A survey for 28 PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) was also
performed at all surface and groundwater sites in July 2019. Previously, PFAS surveys
were performed in December 2017 and September 2018.
The C-Cell leachate pond seepage pits SS8 (C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond Seepage
Pit: CLBP-SP) and SS11 (C-Cell Main Leachate Pond Seepage Pit: CMLP-SP) were dry
and not sampled. SS9 (C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond: CLBP) was off line for cleaning
and not sampled. BH22 was inaccessible due to slippery conditions and earthworks and
also not sampled.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 2
2 Monitoring Sites
With the completion of the C-Cell, the commencement of waste disposal in November
2018 and the construction of 10 new groundwater sampling bores, a number of surface
and groundwater sites have been renamed to better reflect their current functions and to
rationalise the acronyms used for reporting. However, site numbers have not been
altered and are consistent throughout reporting from the commencement of monitoring in
2001 to 2019.
The surface and groundwater monitoring sites sampled routinely, their locations, details
and acronyms are listed in Appendix D. Locations are also shown in Figure 1. Site photos
for July 2019 are presented in Appendix G.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 3
Figure 1: Copping RDS Surface & Groundwater Monitoring Sites
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 4
3 Water Quality Guidelines
Until 2018, the ANZECC/ARMCANZ Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh
and Marine Water Quality (2000) were used to assess the likelihood of adverse
ecological impacts of the receiving waters of the CRDS. With these guidelines now
updated by the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality (2018) (referred to as the ANZG, 2018), DGV (Default Guideline Values) for
physico-chemical stressors are no longer set on a National basis, but revert to State
based, locally derived values. In the case of Tasmania, these have been derived by the
EPA Tasmania, based on data collected over a three year period (usually 2003 – 2006)
from 139 permanently flowing riverine sites. DGVs have been developed for High
Ecological Value (HEV) ecosystems and Slightly to Moderately Disturbed (SMD)
ecological systems for four hydrological regions within Tasmania (H1 – H4) (Default
Guideline Values for Aquatic Ecosystems of Tasmanian Inland Waters, EPA Tasmania,
epa.tas.gov.au, Sourced 2019).
The CRT (CRDS receiving waters) is a moderately impacted perennial stream. For the
purposes of this report, the annual, Region H2 DGVs have been applied as the most
appropriate of the guidelines currently available (Table 2). Nonetheless, these are less
than ideal with the CRDS not within this region. The issue of the most appropriate locally
derived DGVs for the CRT into the future is currently under examination. Potential locally
derived DGVs include those for the Carlton River itself (DPIW, 2008), and the use of the
19 years data collected from both SS6 and SS7 on the CRT as part of the CRDS
SGWMP. The outcome of this review will be published as a separate report by AquaSci.
Toxicity DGVs remain set nationally (ANZG, 2018), and differ little from those within the
ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines, although a number are under review.
As in the past, when the CRT is flowing and can be sampled, the actual effects of all
discharges are assessed through comparisons in water quality between SS6, the
reference site upstream of the CRDS, and SS7, the test site downstream of the CRDS.
Where differences are detected, the various water quality guidelines (e.g. ecosystem
protection, irrigation and stock water) are applied to assist in the assessment of the
likelihood of adverse environmental impacts. Where these are likely, further investigation
may be undertaken, including additional sampling.
For management purposes, to determine if any surface discharge from the landfill site to
the CRT has the potential to be deleterious (whether or not discharge actually does
occur), the levels of key parameters at surface sites may be compared to those at SS6,
the upstream control site on the CRT, or where relevant, with ANZG (2018) or EPA
Tasmania (2019) DGVs. However, it should be noted that strictly the ecosystem
protection guidelines refer only to water quality within the CRT itself.
Currently, there are no water quality guideline threshold values for groundwaters and
groundwater protection strategies are poorly developed in Australia
(ARMCANZ/ANZECC, 1995). The principal reason for monitoring groundwater at the
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 5
CRDS site is to ensure that leachate does not enter and contaminate groundwater, and
background water quality is not compromised. In the event that this did occur, the surface
water guidelines for ecosystem protection may provide a useful baseline for the
assessment of the risk of potential adverse impacts should groundwaters discharge to
surface waters.
The application of other ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines for various agricultural
uses e.g. stock water and irrigation would be valid if groundwaters were abstracted for
these uses. However, this isn’t the case in the vicinity of the CRDS, principally because of
the elevated salinity of most groundwaters and the nature of landuses in the area e.g.
plantation forestry.
As part of a review of The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000) in 2017, draft toxicity guidelines have been
formulated for PFOS and PFOA to provide protection for freshwater and marine
ecosystems (EPA Vic, 2017; CRC CARE, 2017b; HEPA, 2018). There was insufficient
information available to formulate guidelines for other PFAS. In addition, there is a degree
of uncertainty with the 99% species protection level for both PFOS and PFOA (CRC
CARE, 2017b; HEPA, 2018).
Guidelines have also been formulated for soils, terrestrial biota and human/animal health,
including drinking water and recreational waters. (DER WA, 2016; CDEE, 2016; DOH,
2017; CRC CARE, 2017a; HEPA, 2018).
A summary of the relevant draft aquatic guidelines for PFOS and PFOA is presented in
Table 1 below. These are sourced from the HEPA (2018) PFAS National Environmental
Management Plan. Those most relevant to the CRDS and the CRT are the guidelines for
the protection of moderately disturbed freshwater aquatic ecosystems, (generally the
95% species protection level), which are highlighted.
Table 1: PFOS and PFOA Draft Guideline Levels for Ecological Protection in Aquatic Ecosystems
Protection Levels
PFOS PFOA PFOS PFOA
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
0.00023 19 0.29 3,000 High Conservation Systems
99% species protection
0.13 220 7.8 8,500 Slightly - Moderately Disturbed
95% species protection
2 632 32 14,000 Highly Disturbed
90% species protection
31 1,824 130 22,000 Highly Disturbed
85% species protection
* Applicable to CRDS
Freshwaters Marine Waters
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 6
Table 2: ANZG (2018) DGVs for ecosystem protection and other relevant guidelines
Parameter
ANZG (2018)/ EPA (2019)
DGV
Aquatic Ecosystems
(Tas-SMD-HR2)
ADWG
(2011)
ANZECC/ARMCANZ
(2000)
Trigger Value
Agricultural Waters
pH 7.1 – 7.8 6.5 – 8.5 (corrosion) 6 – 9
Conductivity (S/cm) 850.8 <950 - <12,200 (s.d.)
TDS - 600 (palatability) <2,000 - <4,000 livestock (s.d.)
TN as N 0.726 25 – 125 STV, 5 LTV
Total Ammonia as N 0.018 0.5 (corrosion) -
TP as P 0.015 0.8 – 12 STV, 0.05 LTV
Orthophosphate as P 0.006 --
Nitrate 0.132 as NO3 : 50 (infants)
100 (>3 months age)
<400 livestock (as NO3)
Nitrite 0.002 3 (as NO2) <30 livestock (as NO2)
Total CN 0.007 (tox DGV free CN) 0.08 (free) -
E. coli
(org/100mL)
-
100 <10 - <10,000
(use dependent)
Chloride - 25 - >700 (foliar injury – s.d.)
Sulphur as SO4=
- 250 (sulphate) <1,000 stock (sulphate)
Sodium (Na) - 180 (aesthetic) <115 - >460 (foliar injury - s.d.)
Potassium (K) - - -
Magnesium (Mg) - - <2,000 cattle
Toxicant DGV Freshwater
Aluminium (Al) 0.055 0.2 -
Arsenic (As) 0.024 (AsIII)
0.013 (AsV)
0.01 2 STV, 0.1 LTV
0.5 – 5.0 livestock (s.d.)
Cadmium (Cd) 0.0002 0.002 0.05 STV, 0.01 LTV
0.01 livestock
Copper (Cu) 0.0014
2 5 STV, 0.2 LTV
<0.4 - <5 livestock (s.d.)
Chromium (Cr) 0.01 (Cr VI)
0.0033 (Cr III)
0.05 (Cr VI) 1 STV. 0.1 LTV
1 livestock
Iron (Fe) - 0.3 (aesthetic) -
Lead (Pb) 0.0034 0.01 5 STV, 2 LTV
0.1 livestock
Manganese (Mn) 1.9
0.5 (health)
0.1 (aesthetic)
10 STV, 0.2 LTV
Nickel (Ni) 0.011
0.02 2 STV, 0.2 LTV
1 livestock
Mercury (Hg) 0.00006 (inorganic)
99% sp. protection
0.001 0.002 STV and LTV
0.002 livestock
Selenium (Se) 0.005 (Total Se)
99% sp. protection
0.01 0.05 STV, 0.02 LTV
0.02 livestock
Vanadium(V) 0.006 (low reliability) - 0.5 STV, 0.1 LTV
Zinc (Zn) 0.008
3 5 STV, 2 LTV
20 livestock All units mg/L unless otherwise stated SMD = Slightly to Moderately Disturbed H2 = Hydrological Region 2 (Tasmania) STV = Short-term Irrigation Trigger Value (up to 20 years); LTV = Long-term Trigger Value (up to 100 years) s.d. = species dependent – limit varies with species
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 7
4 Results and Comments
Analytical results for the CRDS sites sampled in July 2019 are tabulated in Appendix A
and B and bore sampling information is summarised in Appendix F. In addition, the
following has been supplied to Southern Waste Solutions electronically for the entire
period of the CRDS SGWMP (2001-2019):
► Analytical reports.
► Time trended graphs for all sites and parameters.
► Data matrices for each site and all parameters since the commencement of
monitoring.
Due to their size, it is not practicable to include these in their entirety within monitoring
reports. The salient points concerning these data for each sampling site are summarised
and discussed in Sections 4.2 – 4.4 and Tables 3 – 7 below.
4.1 Rainfall
Rainfall data for Copping was sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology website,
www.bom.gov.au (Stations 92074 Copping to 2012 and 92153 Copping-Yaxley Estate
from 2012).
Monthly rainfall over 2019 at Copping was below long-term average levels in April and
May (Figure 2), but near average in June (68.4 mm; long term average 72.2 mm). Most of
the June rainfall occurred over a single event from 19 – 23 June (50.2 mm). Only 33.4
mm of rain fell over July 2019, much less than the long term monthly average of 72.2
mm. Most of this (22.8 mm) fell over 11 – 15 July, the 5 days prior to sampling (Figure 3).
Consequently, flows were visible over the entire PSWP spillway (SS3), in the PSWP
drain (SS5), the marsh creek and within the CRT, both at SS6 upstream and SS7
downstream. The waters of the PSWP drain, marsh creek and the CRT at SS7
downstream were turbid. The area of the proposed treatment wetlands was under
approximately 3 cm water (BH24A, BH24B, BH25A, BH25B) although accessible by
4WD. BH23 was surrounded by soft, wet clay, preventing direct vehicular access,
although sampling was performed on foot without purging. The access to BH22 above the
quarry was steep, slippery and subject to earthworks, preventing access.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 8
Figure 2: 2019 Monthly rainfall and monthly averages, Copping (Yaxley Estate)
Figure 3: Daily rainfall at Copping (Yaxley Estate), April - July 2019
13.4
45.6
30.8 31
42.6
68.4
33.4
61.1
52.6
62.7
59.5 58.7
72.2 72.2
79.2
61.863.4
70.972.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Jan
-19
Feb
-19
Mar
-19
Ap
r-1
9
May
-19
Jun
-19
Jul-
19
Au
g-1
9
Sep
-19
Oct
-19
No
v-1
9
Dec
-19
Mo
nth
ly R
ain
fall
(mm
)2019 Monthly Rainfall - Copping (Yaxley Estate)
Monthly Rainfall
LT MonthlyAverage
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1-A
pr
3-A
pr
5-A
pr
7-A
pr
9-A
pr
11
-Ap
r1
3-A
pr
15
-Ap
r1
7-A
pr
19
-Ap
r2
1-A
pr
23
-Ap
r2
5-A
pr
27
-Ap
r2
9-A
pr
1-M
ay3
-May
5-M
ay7
-May
9-M
ay1
1-M
ay1
3-M
ay1
5-M
ay1
7-M
ay1
9-M
ay2
1-M
ay2
3-M
ay2
5-M
ay2
7-M
ay2
9-M
ay3
1-M
ay2
-Ju
n4
-Ju
n6
-Ju
n8
-Ju
n1
0-J
un
12
-Ju
n1
4-J
un
16
-Ju
n1
8-J
un
20
-Ju
n2
2-J
un
24
-Ju
n2
6-J
un
28
-Ju
n3
0-J
un
2-J
ul
4-J
ul
6-J
ul
8-J
ul
10
-Ju
l1
2-J
ul
14
-Ju
l1
6-J
ul
18
-Ju
l2
0-J
ul
22
-Ju
l2
4-J
ul
26
-Ju
l2
8-J
ul
30
-Ju
l
Dai
ly R
ain
fall
(mm
)
Daily Rainfall - Copping (Yaxley Estate): April - July 2019
July 2019Sampling
Event
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 9
4.2 Leachate/non-leachate Ratios
The chemistry of landfill leachates is complex, and the breakthrough of leachate into
groundwater can be difficult to detect. Nonetheless, a number of changes are known to
occur, such as increases in the levels of “leachate” cations such as potassium and
ammonium relative to “native” cations such as sodium, calcium and magnesium. The
ratio of the concentrations of these ions (or groups of these ions) may be indicative of the
presence or absence of leachate, and are known as leachate/non-leachate or L/N ratios.
The use of ratios, rather than absolute values, allows comparisons between
groundwaters with different total dissolved solids concentrations or salinity.
Based on past data, the most sensitive indicator of CRDS leachate was found to be the
K++NH4++NOx/Na+ ratio (modified Mulvey Ratio), which is now utilised for reporting. L/N
ratios are presented in Appendix E for both groundwater and surface water sites. The use
of these ratios for CRDS waters was discussed in detail in AquaSci (2019b).
L/N ratios did not indicate the presence of leachate in groundwater at any bore (Appendix
E).
Although less sensitive in surface waters, L/N ratios have been found to be useful for the
detection of fresh leachate in CRDS surface waters. L/N ratios suggested the presence of
leachate only in SS1 (PLP) and SS2 (SSWP) (Appendix E). The latter was used
previously to store leachate while the PLP liner was refurbished. It now contains only a
small amount of rainwater mixed with residual leachate following the removal of stored
leachate back to the PLP. The soluble arsenic level was also indicative of the presence of
a low level of B-Cell leachate.
The leachate within SS10 from the C-Cell is of a different nature (currently petroleum
contaminated soil) to that produced within the B-Cells and the Mulvey L/N ratio utilised for
the latter is not applicable for C-Cell leachate.
4.3 Surface Sites
The results of the analyses of all surface site water quality samples collected on 16 July
2019 are presented in Appendix A and summarised in Table 3.
Parameter levels within the PLP at SS1 remained within historical ranges. The total As
level (0.25 mg/L) has remained similar to levels found over recent events and much lower
than the original spike in concentration detected in November 2012 (4.6 mg/L). This can
be attributed to reduced leachate flows from the capped cells containing the source
waste. The soluble As level was the same as the total level, indicating that all As was
present in the dissolved form.
Soluble As, Al, Cr, Se, V and Zn levels were all higher than the relevant ANZG (2018)
DGVs. No discharge occurs from the PLP to the external environment.
The L/N ratio did not indicate the presence of leachate in waters of the PLP-SP (SS4).
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 10
The total and soluble As level was very low (<0.001 mg/L) and less than the ANZG
(2018) DGV, also suggesting the absence of leachate. The discharge from SS4 appeared
to consist mostly of shallow groundwater originating from below the PLP.
Rainfall over the week prior to the sampling of the PSWP (SS3) on 16 July 2019, resulted
in stormwater flowing over the spillway, through the PSWP drain (SS5) and marsh to the
CRT just upstream of SS7. These waters were turbid with fine clay, although levels were
reduced as less fine sediment was trapped in the PSWP drain (SS5) and the marsh prior
to entry to the receiving waters of the CRT. Nutrient levels were elevated as expected as
the moderate rainfall preceding the sampling event had followed a dry period, although
they did not exceed historical maxima. Much of this can be attributed to the large
numbers of birds utilising the site. A range of total metal levels exceeded the ANZG
(2018) DGVs for ecosystem protection at SS3 reflecting the presence of a high level of
suspended clay. The levels of all of these remained within historical ranges. However, of
soluble metals, only the Cu level exceeded the relevant guideline indicating most of the
metals present were associated with sediment. This may also be the case for Cu since
very fine clay is a feature of the waters of SS3, and some of this is finer than the 0.45 µm
filters used for soluble metal determination.
All parameter levels in the PSWPD remained within historical limits at SS5. Water quality
was similar to that within SS3, indicating this was the source of most of the flow at SS5.
As usual, nutrient levels were slightly lower than in SS3 due to sediment trapping and
uptake by plants. Major ion and EC levels were a little higher reflecting other influences
including naturally saline groundwater discharges to the drain and also those from the
PLP-SP (SS4). Total metal levels reflected the presence of suspended clay. As in SS3,
the only soluble metal level to exceed the relevant ANZG (2018) DGV (0.014 mg/L) was
Cu (0.003 mg/L).
The marsh creek was flowing on 16 July 2019, with an EC of 1,336 µS/cm. This was
much higher than at SS5 (923 µS/cm), reflecting natural groundwater discharges from the
marsh between the CRDS and the CRT. This also contributed to a higher EC at SS7
(1,454 µS/cm) relative to SS6 (528 µS/cm) as did saline groundwater flushed from the
permanent pool just upstream of the Marsh Creek/CRT confluence (3,480 µS/cm).
The pool at SS6 on the CRT upstream of the CRDS was full, with a small but consistent
flow over the northern end of the rock sill on its downstream edge. Water level within the
pool downstream was low, however, indicating only a limited flow down the CRT to SS7.
Although TSS was low, the waters of the CRT were visibly turbid at SS6, from fine clay.
All parameter levels apart from TP (higher) remained within historical ranges but TN and
TP exceeded the relevant DGVs for ecosystem protection. As this reference site is
upstream of the CRDS, these are not attributable to CRDS activities. These parameters
have frequently exceeded the relevant guidelines in the past generally at ‘first flush’ times
when moderate rainfall occurred following a dry period or when water levels were very
low.
A constant flow of milky turbid water was present at SS7 downstream, with a depth of
about 30 cm. The waters were turbid from fine clay entering from the marsh creek and
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 11
from upstream. A significant proportion of the flow at SS7 appeared to originate from the
marsh creek rather than the CRT upstream. Sources include the CRDS stormwater
system through the PSWP drain, flows to the drain observed from the south and the
marsh itself. Consequently, a range of parameter levels were higher at SS7 than at SS6
including EC, TDS, pH, alkalinity, TSS, TN, TKN, nitrate, TP, and major ions (Cl, S, Na,
Mg, Ca). EC, TN, nitrate and TP levels all exceeded the relevant DGVs for ecosystem
protection. TKN, nitrate and TP all exceeded the previous historical maxima as did TP at
SS6 upstream. The latter was likely to be a result of the level of fine clay present; TP is
well known to bind strongly to sediment.
These differences in water quality between SS6 and SS7 downstream reflect the flushing
of rainwater from the marsh creek (including the marsh itself and the CRDS stormwater
system) to the CRT at SS7 following rainfall as well as the timing of sampling, which
occurred immediately at the end of a significant rainfall event. EC was significantly
affected by the partial flushing of saline groundwater that discharges to the permanent
pool just upstream of the CRT – marsh creek confluence. This source may also have
affected nutrient levels. Similar nutrient flushes were evident at the SS6 reference site
and are a natural feature of ephemeral systems such as the CRT. The CRT at SS7 was
dry prior to the rainfall event preceding sampling.
The makeup of C-Cell leachate in SS10 is currently variable as waste is added to the cell
and rainfall has leached through to the CMLP (SS10). Since waste disposal commenced
in November 2018, the CMLP (SS10) has been sampled on three occasions, although
only the recent July 2019 event has followed significant rainfall. TSS, TN, nitrate, TP and
DOC levels were all elevated in July 2019 and total metal levels were high, reflecting very
high TSS levels. Soluble metal levels were lower, but a range of metal levels exceeded
the ANZG (2018) toxicity DGVs including Al, Cd, Cu, Ni, Se and Zn. S dominated the
major ions present, unlike all other CRDS surface waters, which have been dominated by
Cl and Na.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 12
Table 3: Data summary CRDS Surface Sites for July 2019
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGData Summary - 16 July 2019 - S
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) SS 1 SS4 SS10 SS11
PLP PLP-SP CMLP LHP2-SP
Historical Data 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 Dec 2018, Mar 2019 (2 Events) Dec 2018, Mar 2019 (2 Events)
Exceeding Historical Range None None N/A Dry - Not sampled
Rising Over Time Cl & S (g,v - from 2007) None N/A
Falling Over Time None None N/A
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TN, TAN, TP, Ortho-P EC, TN, TAN, Nitrate (as usual) EC, TN, Nitrate, TP
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams CN (sl), Sol. As, Al, Cr, Ni, Zn, V None Sol. Al, Cd, Cu, Ni, Se, Zn
Discharge to Environment No No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)Sol. Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg
TSS, Ortho-P, CN, Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe,
Pb, Hg, Se, VOrtho-P, CN, Sol. Pb, Hg
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) SS2 SS14 SS9 SS8
SSWP SSWP-SP CLBP CLBP-SP
Historical Data (as CMLP from Dec 2018) Dec 2018 - Mar 2019 (2 Events) Dec 2018 - Mar 2019 (2 Events) Drained for cleaning Dry
Exceeding Historical Range N/A N/A Not sampled Not sampled
Rising Over Time N/A N/A
Falling Over Time N/A N/A
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams pH, TN, TP EC, TN, TAN, TP
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None Sil. Al, Cu, Ni
Discharge to Environment No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)
TAN, Nitrate, Nitrite, CN,
Sol. Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V, ZnTSS, CN, Sol. Fe, Pb, Hg, V
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) SS 3 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7
PSWP PSWPD CRT-U/S CRT-D/S
Historical Data (post-2017) 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019
Exceeding Historical Range None None TP TKN, Nitrate, TP
Rising Over Time pH? None None None
Falling Over Time DOC (g, since 2014) None None None
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams pH, TN, TAN, Nitrate, Nitrite (as usual) pH, EC (low), TN, Nitrate, TP TN EC, TN
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams Sol. Cu Sol. Cu None None
Discharge to Environment Yes Yes N/A N/A
Level > than at SS6 reference siteN/A N/A N/A
EC, TDS, pH, Alk, TSS, TN, TKN, Nitrate,
TP, Cl, S, Na, Mg, Ca
Level < than at SS6 reference site N/A N/A N/A Redox
Less Than LOR (not detected)
Ortho-P, CN,
Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, V
Ortho-P, CN,
Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, V, Zn
TSS, Nitrite, Ortho-P, CN
Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn
Ortho-P, CN,
Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, V, Zn
v = variable sl = slightly g = gradual
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 13
Table 4: Data summary CRDS Groundwater Bores for July 2019
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGData Summary - 16/17 July 2019 - S
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH13 BH1 BH10A BH10D
URS (13.5m) CLN (24m) BNC9O-D (7.8m) BNC9-S (7.0m)
Historical Data 2013 - Mar 2019 2001 - Mar 2019 2011 - Mar 2019 None - New Bore
Exceeding Historical Range pH (sl hgher) TN, TKN (lower) TN, S (lower) N/A
Rising Over time None Cl (since 2014) None N/A
Falling Over Time SHH, Na (g, since 2014) None Mg (g) N/A
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC EC, TAN (sl) EC, Ortho-P EC
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None None None None
L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)
Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cu, Fe,
Pb, Hg, Se, V
Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V, Zn
Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As,Cd, Cr, Cu,
Fe, Pb, Hg, Mn, Ni, Se, V
Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH10C BH7 BH12A BH12B
BNC9-D (12.4m) BPLP (10m) BIA-D (21.6m) BIA-S (5.5m)
Historical Data None - New Bore 2001 - Mar 2019 2013 - Mar 2019 2013 - Mar 2019
Exceeding Historical Range N/A None Ca (sl. higher) SHH, S (sl. lower)
Rising Over time N/A None EC, TDS (g,v) EC
Falling Over Time N/A EC, Ca (g,v since 2014) SHH (g) None
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TAN EC EC, TAN pH (lower), EC,TAN
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None None Mn (sl) None
L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)Nitrite, CN, Sol: Cd, Pb, Hg, V
Nitrite, CN, Sol. As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,
Hg, Ni, Se, V
Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,
Hg, Ni, Se, V
CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Se,
V
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH2 BH14A BH15A BH15B
DBNW (11.5m) CSW-D (21.5m) CW-D (25m) CW-S (8.5m)
Historical Data 2016 - Mar 2019 2016 - Mar 2019 (9 Events) 2016 - Mar 2019 (9 Events) 2016 - Mar 2019
Exceeding Historical Range Redox (higher) Higher : pH Lower : TN, TKN, TAN, S TN (lower) NS - insufficient recharge
Rising Over Time None N/A EC (g), DOC (g)
Falling Over Time EC, TDS, Cl, Mg, Ca (All g) N/A None
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TN, Nitrate EC, TAN, Nitrate EC
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams Sol: V None None
L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)CN, Sol: Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se
CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni,
Se, V
TAN, Nitrite, TP, Ortho-P, CN, Sol: As,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, V, Zn
v = variable sl = slightly g = gradual
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 14
Table 5: Data summary CRDS Groundwater Bores for July 2019
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGData Summary - 16/17 July 2019 - S
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH18A BH19 BH21 BH22
URE-D (35m) CLW (8.4m) URSW (30.4m) URNE (20m)
Historical Data 2016 - Mar 2019 (9 Events) None - New Bore None - New Bore None - New Bore
Exceeding Historical Range None N/A N/A NS - Inaccessible
Rising Over time Na, Ca, ?K N/A N/A
Falling Over Time SHH (poor recharge) N/A N/A
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, TN, Nitrate EC, Ortho-P EC, Nitrite (sl)
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None Sol: Zn Sol: Zn
L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)
Ortho-P, CN, Sol: Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,
Hg, Se
CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Se,
V
CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni,
Se, V
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B
WBS-D (12.4m) WBS-S (3.0m) WBN-D (9.5m) WBN-S (2.8m)
Historical Data None - New Bore None - New Bore None - New Bore None - New Bore
Exceeding Historical Range N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rising Over time N/A N/A N/A N/A
Falling Over Time N/A N/A N/A N/A
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams pH (lower), EC, TAN pH (lower), EC, TP, Ortho-P pH (lower), EC pH (lower), EC
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams None None None Cr (sl), Zn
L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No No No No
Less Than LOR (not detected)
Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V
Nitrate, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,
Hg, Se, V
Nitrate, Nitrite, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, VTAN, CN, Sol: As, Cd, Fe, Pb, Hg, Se, V
Parameter (Groups 1 - 3) BH23
BNC10 (15.4m)
Historical Data None - New Bore
Exceeding Historical Range N/A
Rising Over time N/A
Falling Over Time N/A
Higher Than EPA (2019) DGV (Tas) for Streams EC, Nitrite (sl)
Higher Than ANZG (2018) Toxicity DGV for Streams Sol: Zn
L/N Ratios Indicate Presence of Leachate No
Less Than LOR (not detected)
CN, Sol: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Hg, Ni,
Se, V
v = variable sl = slightly g = gradual
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 15
4.4 Groundwater Sites
The results of the analyses of all groundwater quality samples collected on 16/17 July
2019 are presented in Appendix B and summarised in Tables 4 & 5.
Apart from the bores sampled for the first time on 17 July 2019, water quality within the
groundwater bores tested generally remained within historical ranges, although TN and
some other N-nutrient levels were lower than usual in several bores including BH1,
BH10A, BH14A and BH15A. Soluble metal levels were very low across all bores, often
below the limit of reporting (LOR). Zn levels slightly exceeded the ANZG (2018) DGV for
surface waters in the new bores BH10C, BH10D, BH19, BH21 and BH25B. The Cr level
in the latter also exceeded the relevant guideline, although only marginally. The soluble
Mn level slightly exceeded the relevant guideline in BH12A and the V level in BH2.
The groundwater at the CRDS site is saline and slightly acidic. Hence EC in all bores
tested (2,347 – 8,300 µS/cm) exceeded the relevant EPA Tasmania (2019) DGV for
surface ecosystem protection (850.8 µS/cm) and pH was below the lower guideline (7.1)
in a range of bores (6.0 – 6.8).
Water quality and leachate indicators such as As and TAN levels, and modified Mulvey
L/N ratios did not reveal the presence of leachate in any groundwater bore.
Recharge was inadequate for sampling in BH15B, located in a temporary perched
aquifer. Recharge was also poor in BH18A and although water quality samples were
collected, they were very turbid with grey sediment.
Cromer (2018) suggested that the near Cell 9 bores BH10A and BH10B be deepened so
that one of them intersected the deeper sandstone at that site. In essence, this meant
deepening BH10B or adding an additional bore circa 12 m in depth, preferably the latter.
BH10A (7.8 m) has been a productive bore with an extensive water quality record
extending from 2011 and did not need replacement. Subsequently, two new bores were
constructed 25 m further from the cells, BH10C (12.4 m) and BH10D (7.0 m). During this
sampling event, these bores were sampled for the first time.
Water quality differed between the two shallower bores with EC higher in BH10D (8,300
µS/cm) than BH10A (6,500 µS/cm). TP and Ortho-P levels were higher in BH10A and
soluble Zn and Mn levels much higher in BH10D. The latter was also more turbid, and
importantly further from the landfill cells. As these bores are situated to detect any
leakage from the B-cells in the vicinity as early as possible, the closer they are to the
landfill cells the better.
It has been decided to retain all four near Cell 9 bores as two clusters: BH10A and
BH10B adjacent to Cell 9, and BH10C and BH10D 25 m further away (R. Casimaty, C.
Bell, e-mails, 28 August 2019). This will allow the tracking of any contamination plume,
should this occur in the future.
DOC levels have been historically lower since 2015 in a range of bores including BH1,
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 16
BH7, BH10A, BH10B, BH12A, BH12B and BH13, probably reflecting lower than average
annual rainfall. A similar trend was also evident for TN levels in BH1 and BH7, with the
latter also showing clear seasonal fluctuations in SHH over the same period; generally
SHH was lower in autumn.
The groundwaters of the four leachate treatment wetland bores (BH24A, 24B, BH25A
and BH25B) were all saline and somewhat acidic as is the case with other CRDS
groundwaters. BH24A (12.4 m) showed higher TAN level (0.082 mg/L) than the other 3
bores and TP/Ortho-P levels were higher in the shallow BH24B (3.0 m). The soluble Zn
level was higher in the shallow BH25B (0.012 mg/L) than the other bores (0.002 – 0.003
mg/L).
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 17
4.5 Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
The results of all PFAS samples tested in July 2019 are presented in Appendix C, with
those tested in December 2017 and September 2018 in SS1 presented for comparison in
Table 6. These results are discussed below.
In July 2019, PFAS were detected in 6 of the 9 surface sites tested, although principally
in SS1 (PLP), the Primary Leachate Pond. Within this pond, the level was somewhat
lower overall (Sum of PFAS 9.18 µg/L) than previously recorded in December 2017 (11.8
µg/L) and September 2018 (11.01 µg/L) (Table 6).
Low levels of several of the PFAS found in SS1 were detected within SS14 (SSWP-SP)
and to a lesser extent SS10 (CMLP) and SS2 (SSWP). As these sites had previously
contained B-Cell leachate, the detection of low PFAS levels is not unexpected.
Traces of PFOA (at limit of detection level – 0.02 µg/L) and two other PFAS were also
found in both SS3 (PSWP) and SS5 (PSWP Drain). Their presence indicates the
presence of traces of leachate within the stormwaters of SS3, possibly the result spray
drift during windy times from SS1 and historically the WAIV unit that was located nearby
until December 2017. The levels are so low as to be insignificant and are not discussed
further.
In the PLP (SS1), the PFOS level in July 2019 (0.32 µg/L) was lower than that detected in
December 2017 and September 2018 (0.42, 0.55 µg/L) but still marginally exceeded the
draft HEPA guideline value for slightly-moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems (0.31
µg/L). PFOA levels were low on all three sampling dates and well below the relevant
guideline (220 µg/L).
Of the PFAS tested, PFHxA was present in the highest concentration (2.4 – 2.82 µg/L) in
SS1 during all three sampling events over 2017 – 2019.
Gallen et al (2017) tested leachate from 27 Australian landfills, although only for a suite of
9 PFAS, all of which were included in the PFAS suite analysed for CRDS samples. The
most prevalent PFAS detected within the CRDS leachate and that from the 27 landfills
examined by Gallen et al (2017) are summarised in Table 7 below.
Where comparison was possible, the concentrations of the various PFAS present in
CRDS leachate were well within the ranges found within the 27 landfills tested by Gallen
et al (2017) and well below the maxima recorded. In addition, those found to be most
prevalent by Gallen et al (2017) were also amongst those found in the highest
concentrations within CRDS leachate.
As with other leachate contaminants, the absence of any discharge to the receiving
environment from CRDS leachate ponds precludes any adverse impacts on the latter.
PFAS were not detected in any groundwater bore.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 18
Table 6: PFAS levels in SS1, 2017 - 2019
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGConsolidated Data Matrix - PFAS
Per &Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Dec-2017 Sep-2018 Jul-2019
Perfluoroalkane Sulphonic Acids (PFSAs)
Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.97 1.3 1.1
Perfluoropentane sulphonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.06 <0.07 <0.02
Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 1.21 1.2 1.1
Perfluoroheptane sulphonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L <0.02 <0.03 <0.02
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.42 0.55 0.32
Perfluorodecane sulphonic acid (PFDS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroalkane Carboxylic Acids (PFCAs)
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 2.5 1.4 1.2
Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 1.37 1.2 1.1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 2.82 2.7 2.4
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.64 0.62 0.50
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.96 1.1 0.75
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.06 0.06 0.04
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.03 0.02 0.02
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Perfluoroalkyl Sulphonamides
Perfluorooctane sulphonamide (FOSA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Ethly perfluorooctane sulphonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.29 0.39 <0.05
N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.02 0.07 <0.05
(n:2) Fluorotelomer Sulphonic Acids
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.47 0.42 0.33
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Sum of PFAS µg/L 11.8 11.01 9.18
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.42 0.55 0.32
Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 1.63 1.75 1.42
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.96 1.1 0.75
Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L 11.4 10.49 8.80
Bold: Exceeds HEPA (2018) GL for Slightly - Moderately Disturbed Freshwater Ecological Systems
HEPA (2018) GL - PFOS: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 0.13 µg/L
HEPA (2018) GL - PFOA: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 220 µg/L
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 19
Table 7: Most prevalent PFAS in B-Cell leachate at CRDS and 27 Australian landfills (Galen et al
2017)
Most Prevalent PFASs Detected
Unit SS1 SS1 SS1 Min Max Mean
Dec-2017 Sep-2018 Jul-2019
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 2.82 2.7 2.4 0.073 25.0 1.7
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 2.50 1.4 1.2 Not Tested
Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 1.37 1.2 1.1 Not Tested
Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 1.21 1.2 1.1 0.056 16.000 1.200
Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.97 1.3 1.1 Not Tested
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.96 1.1 0.75 0.017 7.500 0.690
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.64 0.62 0.50 0.018 4.400 0.430
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.42 0.55 0.32 0.013 2.700 0.310
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.47 0.42 0.33 Not Tested
CRDS Gallen et al 2017 - 27 Landfills
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 20
5 Overall Summary and Conclusions
► Nine surface sites and nineteen groundwater bores were sampled on 16 -
17 July 2019 for a wide range of water quality parameters (groups 1 – 3) as
per the Landfill Sustainability Guide (DPIWE, 2004) and EPN 690/1. Nine of
these groundwater bores were sampled for the first time.
► The leachate storage pond seepage pits SS8 and SS11 were not sampled
as they were dry or insufficient water was present. The CLBP (SS9) was not
sampled as it was offline for cleaning, and contained only a little rainwater.
BH15B contained insufficient water for sampling and BH22 was inaccessible
due to earthworks.
► The levels of most parameters tested were within historical ranges at all
surface sites apart from SS10, the CMLP. The composition of the C-Cell
leachate it contains is in flux since waste disposal only commenced in
November 2018 and rainfall has been limited until June/July 2019.
► L/N ratios indicated the presence of leachate only within the Primary
Leachate Pond SS1 and to a lesser in the Secondary Stormwater Pond
(SS2). The latter was previously used to store leachate while the PLP was
relined and contained little water in July 2019.
► As sampling occurred immediately following a moderate rainfall event
following a dry period (flushing event), a range of stormwater (SS3, SS5)
and receiving water sites (SS7) were flowing and turbid from fine,
suspended clay.
► Within the CRT water was present at both the upstream reference site SS6
and the downstream site SS7. A small flow was present over the rock sill
downstream of SS6. Water quality at SS7 differed to some extent to that at
SS6. EC was clearly higher at SS7 (1,454 µS/cm) than at SS6 (528 µS/cm),
the CRT reference site, reflecting saline flows from the marsh (1,336 µS/cm)
and flushing of groundwater from the permanent pool upstream of the CRT-
marsh creek confluence (3,480 µS/cm). Major ion and nutrient levels were
also higher at SS7 than SS6.
► These differences in water quality between SS6 and SS7 downstream
reflect the flushing of rainwater from the marsh creek (including the marsh
itself and the CRDS stormwater system) to the CRT at SS7 following rainfall
as well as the timing of sampling, which occurred immediately at the end of
a significant rainfall event. Similar nutrient flushes have occurred previously
and are a natural feature of ephemeral systems such as the CRT. Adverse
impacts on ecological communities within the CRT at SS7 were unlikely,
particularly as SS7 was dry during the previous sampling event.
► TN and TP levels exceeded the relevant DGV for ecosystem protection at
both the SS6 reference site and SS7 the downstream site. EC and nitrate
levels also exceeded the relevant DGVs at SS7.
► Within all bores sampled in July 2019, the levels of most parameters tested
remained within historical ranges. Little change in water quality was noted
relative to previous recent sampling events.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 21
► L/N ratios or the levels of other leachate indicators such as As levels, did not
indicate the presence of leachate within groundwaters at any bore tested.
► As has been the case since monitoring commenced, the waters of all bores
were saline to some extent (EC 2,347 – 8,300 µS/cm) and somewhat acidic,
including the new bores tested.
► Soluble metal levels were generally very low with only Zn exceeding the
ANZG (2018) toxicity DGV for surface water ecosystem protection in the
new bores BH10C, BH10D, BH19, BH21 and BH25B. The Cr level also
exceeded the relevant DGV in BH25B, V in BH2 and Mn in BH12A.
► In July 2019, PFAS were detected in 6 of the 9 surface sites tested,
although principally in SS1 (PLP), the Primary Leachate Pond. Within this
pond, the level was somewhat lower overall (Sum of PFAS 9.18 µg/L) than
previously recorded in December 2017 (11.8 µg/L) and September 2018
(11.01 µg/L) (Table 6).
► Low levels of several of the PFAS found in SS1 were detected within SS14
(SSWP-SP) and to a lesser extent SS10 (CMLP) and SS2 (SSWP). As
these sites had previously contained B-Cell leachate, the detection of low
PFAS levels is not unexpected.
► Traces of PFOA (at limit of detection level – 0.02 µg/L) and two other PFAS
were found in both SS3 (PSWP) and SS5 (PSWP Drain). Their presence
indicates the presence of traces of leachate within the stormwaters of SS3,
possibly the result spray drift during windy times from SS1 and historically
the WAIV unit that was located nearby until December 2017. The levels are
so low as to be insignificant.
► Where comparison was possible, the concentrations of the various PFAS
present in CRDS leachate were well within the ranges found within the 27
landfills tested by Gallen et al (2017) and well below the maxima recorded.
In addition, those found to be most prevalent by Gallen et al (2017) were
also amongst those found in the highest concentrations within CRDS
leachate.
► As with other leachate contaminants, the absence of any discharge to the
receiving environment from CRDS leachate ponds precludes any adverse
impacts on the latter.
► PFAS were not detected in any groundwater bore.
► The water quality data collected in July 2019 indicated that adverse water
quality impacts on groundwaters were not detected and that adverse
impacts on the receiving waters of the CRT attributable to the CRDS were
highly unlikely.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 22
6 References
ALS (2010). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Dec 2009. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Australian Laboratory Services, 1 – 28, Appendix A – D
AquaSci (2014a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Report, April 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 22, Appendix A – C
AquaSci (2014b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Six-monthly Report, June 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 25, Appendix A – C
AquaSci (2014c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Water Quality Sampling, August 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 15
AquaSci (2014d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Ad Hoc Seep Sampling, 29 August 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 16
AquaSci (2014e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Review. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 43
AquaSci (2014f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Report, October 2014. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 29, Appendix A – C
AquaSci (2015a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Rainfall Event Sampling, 14 January 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 14, Appendix 1
AquaSci (2015b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Quarterly Report, April 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 29, Appendix A - D
AquaSci (2015c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Six-monthly Report, June 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 30, Appendix A – C
AquaSci (2015d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Quarterly Report, September 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 31, Appendix A – C
AquaSci (2015e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS2 Sludge Analyses, November 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 9, Appendix A
AquaSci (2016a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report December 2015. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 54, Appendices A – E.
AquaSci (2016b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS1 Sludge Analyses, March 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 11, Appendix A.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 23
AquaSci (2016c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report March 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 35, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2016d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS10 Ad Hoc Sampling Event, 8 June 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 10.
AquaSci (2016e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Six-monthly Report, June 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 38, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2016f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, SS1 Sludge Analyses, July 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 12, Appendix A.
AquaSci (2016g). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Primary Leachate Pond Relining, Sediment and Water Analyses, Sep 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 – 11
AquaSci (2016h). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report October 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 35, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2017a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report 2016. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 49, Appendices A – E.
AquaSci (2017b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report April 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 31, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2017c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Six-monthly Report June 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 42, Appendices A – E.
AquaSci (2017d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly, Report October 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 34, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2018a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report 2017. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 52, Appendices A – F.
AquaSci (2018b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Report, March 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 33, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2018c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report Six-monthly Event June 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 42, Appendices A – E.
AquaSci (2018d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, Quarterly Event, September 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 43, Appendices A - D.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 24
AquaSci (2019a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Annual Report 2018. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 52, Appendices A – E.
AquaSci (2019b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Review, 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci, 1 - 86, Appendices A – C.
AquaSci (2019c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, Quarterly Event, March 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 34, Appendices A - C.
AquaSci (2019d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Report, Ad Hoc Sampling Event, May 2019. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by AquaSci , 1 – 16, Appendix A
Aquateco Consulting (2010). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, June 2010. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Aquateco Consulting, 1 – 37, Appendix A–B
Aquateco Consulting (2011a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, December 2010. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Aquateco Consulting, 1 – 60, Appendix A–C
Aquateco Consulting (2011B). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, April 2011. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Aquateco Consulting, 1 – 37, Appendix A–B
ANZECC & ARMCANZ (1995). Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia. National Water Quality Management Strategy, Paper No. 8. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy, Paper No. 4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
CDEE (2016). Draft Commonwealth Environmental Management Guidance on Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy, 1 – 36
CRC CARE (2017a). Assessment, management and remediation for PFOS and PFOA. Part 2: Health Screening Levels. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Technical Report series, No. 38, 1 – 90
CRC CARE (2017b). Assessment, management and remediation for PFOS and PFOA. Part 3: Ecological Screening Levels. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Technical Report series, No. 38, 1 – 50
DER (WA) (2016). Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Contaminated Sites Guidelines. Government of Western Australia, Department of Environment Regulation, 1 – 26.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 25
DOH (2017). Health Based Guidance Values for PFAS. For Use in Site Investigations in Australia. Australian Government Department of Health, Fact Sheet, 1 - 2
DPIWE (2001). Emission Limit Guidelines for Sewage Treatment Plants That Discharge into Fresh and Marine Waters. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Tasmania, 1 - 6.
DPIWE (2002). Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania. Environment Division, Department of Primary Industry and Environment, 1 – 131
DPIWE (2004). Landfill Sustainability Guide. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment.
EPA, Tasmania (2019). Default Guideline Values for Aquatic Ecosystems of Tasmanian Inland Waters. epa.tas.gov.au/epa/water/Water Quality Guideline Values for Aquatic Ecosystem of Tasmania. Sourced July, 2019).
Ecosure (2012). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, April 2012. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 45, Appendix 1 – 3
Ecosure (2013a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, November 2012. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 45, Appendix 1 – 3
Ecosure (2013b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring. Leachate Pond (SS1) Water Quality Analyses, 9 January 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 2
Ecosure (2013c). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Rainfall Event, 9 April 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 23, Appendix 1 – 2
Ecosure (2013d). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program, Secondary Stormwater Pond Discharge, 22-29 April 2013, Water Quality Monitoring. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 23, Appendix 1 – 2
Ecosure (2013e). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Quarterly Event Report, May 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 36, Appendix 1 – 4
Ecosure (2013f). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Program Six-monthly Event Report, September 2013. Report produced for Southern Waste Solutions by Ecosure Pty Ltd, 1 – 36, Appendix 1 – 2
Ecowise Environmental (2006). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, May 2006. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd, 1 – 16, Appendix A – B
Ecowise Environmental (2007a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Nov 2006. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd, 1 – 21, Appendix A – E
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 26
Ecowise Environmental (2007b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, May 2007. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental Pty Ltd, 1 – 19, Appendix A – B
Ecowise Environmental (2008a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Nov 2007. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 25, Appendix A – D
Ecowise Environmental (2008b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, May 2008. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 19, Appendix A – B
Ecowise Environmental (2009). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, Dec 2008. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 24, Appendix A – D
Ecowise Environmental (2009). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 6-monthly Report, May 2009. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by Ecowise Environmental, 1 – 19, Appendix A – B
Gallen, C., Drage, D., Eaglesham, G., Grant, S., Bowman, M and Mueller, J.f. (2017). Australia-wide Assessment of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Landfill Leachates. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 331: 132 – 141
HEPA (2018). PFAS National Environmental Management Plan. Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand/Australian Dept of Environment and Energy, Jan 2018, 1 - 49
NHMRC & NRMMC (2004). National Water Quality Management Strategy. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. 6. Commonwealth of Australia. Printed for the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Resource Management Ministerial Council.
Standards Australia (1998a) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples AS/NZS 5667.1:1998
Standards Australia (1998b) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 4: Guidance on sampling from lakes, natural and man made. AS/NZS 5667.6:1998
Standards Australia (1998c) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 6: Guidance on sampling of rivers and streams. AS/NZS 5667.6:1998
Standards Australia (1998d) Australian/ New Zealand Standard on Water Quality Sampling. Part 11: Guidance on the sampling of groundwaters. AS/NZS 5667.11:1998
Water ECOscience (2001). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report October 2001. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd.
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 27
WATER ECOscience (2003). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2001 – 2002. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 27, Appendices.
WATER ECOscience (2004a). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2003. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 44, Appendices
WATER ECOscience (2004b). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report 24 February 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 14, Appendices.
WATER ECOscience (2004c). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report 17 June 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 23, Appendices.
WATER ECOscience (2004d). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Quarterly Report 24 August 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 17, Appendices.
WATER ECOscience (2005a). Copping Landfill Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2004. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 20, Appendix A – E
WATER ECOscience (2005b). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Six-monthly Report, April 2005. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 15, Appendix A – B
WATER ECOscience (2006a). Copping Refuse Disposal Site Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report 2005. Report produced for the Copping Refuse Site Joint Authority by WATER ECOscience Pty Ltd, 1 – 20, Appendix A – E
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 28
Appendix A: SS Results Summary Tables
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 29
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Consolidated Data Matrix - Surface Sampling Sites - 16 July 2019 - SME
DGV
Ecosystem SS 1 SS 4 SS 9 SS8 SS10 SS11
Parameter Units Protection PLP PLP-SP CLBP CLBP-SP CMLP CMLP-SP
SMD-Tas-H2 0850 0835 0730 0720 0740 0735
Surface Waters 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul
Group 1 (Q) Off-line Dry Dry
*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 12.3 11.6 8.9
*pH 7.1-7.8 7.7 7.0 7.3
*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 13,610 6,450 2,569
TDS mg/L 7,200 3,900 1,800
*Redox Potential mV (Calomel) -27.2 -13.6 89.7
COD mg/L 1,600 19 200
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 11 12 <2 150
Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 3,700 660 160
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 600 0.55 16
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 600 0.38 14
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 560 0.082 0.011
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 <0.1 0.16 2.3
Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.1 0.005 0.021
Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 3.1 0.017 1.1
Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 2.3 <0.003 <0.003
DOC mg/L 380 4.3 39
Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.05 <0.005 <0.005
E. coli org/100mL 130 0 620
Group 2 (S) -Total Metals Toxicity DGV
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.25 <0.001 0.035
Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 0.09 0.02 20
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0.036
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.062 <0.001 0.004
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 0.002 0.001 0.015
Iron as Fe mg/L 2.6 0.4 1.6
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 0.029
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.48 0.48 0.65
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.030 0.003 0.800
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.025 0.008 0.60
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.049 <0.001 0.007
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0045
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 0.004 <0.001 0.066
Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals
Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 0.060 0.02 1.4
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.25 <0.001 0.009
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.019
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 0.057 <0.001 0.001
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.005
Iron as Fe mg/L 2.3 <0.01 0.01
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.5 0.47 0.5
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.12 0.003 0.58
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 0.004 <0.001 0.062
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.046 <0.001 0.003
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.011 0.006 0.20
Group 3 (S) - Major Ions
Chloride as Cl-
mg/L 3,200 2,100 140
Sulphur as SO4=
mg/L 92 190 1,100
Magnesium as Mg mg/L 310 280 140
Potassium as K mg/L 150 2 12
Sodium as Na mg/L 2,000 820 240
Calcium as Ca mg/L 120 210 150
* Measured in the field. SME = Six-monthly event L = low reliability TTV
Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection
Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019) Toxicity DGV (ANZG, 2018)
Leachate Ponds and Seepage Pits
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 30
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Consolidated Data Matrix - Surface Sampling Sites - 16 July 2019 - SME
DGV
Ecosystem SS 2 SS 14 SS 3 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7
Parameter Units Protection SSWP SSWP-SP PSWP PSWPD CRT-U/S CRT-D/S
SMD-Tas-H2 0815 0800 0900 0920 1000 0950
Surface Waters 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul 16 Jul
Group 1 (Q)
*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 10.8 12.2 8.0 8.0 8.4 8.0
*pH 7.1-7.8 9.0 7.5 8.2 8.1 7.2 7.7
*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 520 3,810 808 923 528 1,454
TDS mg/L 310 2,100 380 470 270 710
*Redox Potential mV (Calomel) 86.3 106.7 44.0 78.3 113.0 83.4
COD mg/L 95 74 36 34 35 34
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 11 24 <2 46 23 <2 6
Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 110 80 150 170 73 140
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 3.7 13 8.4 6.7 1.5 2.4
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 3.7 3.0 5.9 4.4 1.5 2.0
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 0.049 0.004 0.50 0.31 0.006 0.004
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 0.012 10 2.4 2.3 0.018 0.41
Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.002 0.004 0.041 0.042 <0.002 0.003
Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.20 0.060 0.26 0.22 0.087 0.19
Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 0.004 0.020 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
DOC mg/L 30 25 8 8 9 10
Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
E. coli org/100mL 21 1 520 140 10 41
Group 2 (S) -Total Metals Toxicity DGV
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.056 0.005 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 0.21 0.09 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.7
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) <0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.002 0.003
Iron as Fe mg/L 0.52 0.02 4.4 2.5 0.85 2.3
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 0.002 <0.001 0.006 0.004 <0.001 0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.11 0.022 0.11 0.047 0.017 0.092
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.003 0.017 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.003
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.007 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.003 0.005
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.003 <0.001 0.011 0.007 0.004 0.005
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 0.0004 <0.0001 0.0008 0.0006 <0.0001 0.0002
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.003
Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals
Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.055 <0.01 0.09 0.01 0.010 0.03 0.01
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.036 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.002
Iron as Fe mg/L 0.03 <0.01 0.1 0.02 0.08 0.04
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.004 0.011 0.006 0.001 0.010 0.063
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.002 0.016 0.003 0.002 <0.001 0.002
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.001 <0.001
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 <0.001 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Group 3 (S) - Major Ions
Chloride as Cl-
mg/L 97 1,200 150 210 120 420
Sulphur as SO4=
mg/L 8 120 26 31 23 62
Magnesium as Mg mg/L 11 65 23 31 16 50
Potassium as K mg/L 7 13 2.9 3 2 2
Sodium as Na mg/L 62 640 100 120 67 220
Calcium as Ca mg/L 16 39 25 31 12 35
* Measured in the field. SME = Six-monthly event L = low reliability TTV
Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection Receiving waters
Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019)
Stormwaters and Receiving Waters
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 31
Appendix B: BH Results Summary Tables
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 32
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Consolidated Data Matrix - Groundwater Sampling Sites - 16 - 17 July 2019 - SME
Parameter Units DGV BH1 BH13 BH19 BH21 BH22 BH12A BH12B
Ecosystem CLN UR-S CLW UR-SW UR-NE BIA-D BIA-S
Protection 23.0 m 13.5 m 8.4 m 30.4 m 20.0 m 21.6 m 5.5 m
SMD-Tas-H2 1400 1040 1030 1000 1120 0920 0930
Surface Waters 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul
Bore depth m bgl 23.00 13.49 8.44 30.47 21.58 5.17
Groundwater depth m bgl 6.98 7.33 4.65 10.20 3.67 4.01
Static hydraulic head m bgl 16.02 6.16 3.79 20.27 17.91 1.16
Group 1 (Q) ns CLAY
*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 15.0 13.7 13.9 13.2 12.9 13.9
*pH 7.1-7.8 nm nm nm 7.2 6.8 6.0
*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 6,600 4,960 4,390 2,347 5,130 3,350
TDS mg/L 4,900 2,900 2,500 1,300 3,100 1,800
*Redox Potential mV (calomel) nm nm nm 55.9 26.1 84.5
COD mg/L 16 17 11 8 13 13
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 0.07 0.20 0.1 0.13 0.16 0.14
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.07 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.14 0.12
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 0.019 <0.02 <0.02 0.017 0.120 0.019
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 <0.003 <0.003 0.006 0.035 0.019 0.020
Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 0.003 <0.002 0.003
Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.007 0.004 0.014 0.004 0.004 0.019
Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.007
DOC mg/L 2.0 5.3 2.8 2.4 1.8 3.0
Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Group 2 (S) - Total Metals Toxicity DGV
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.002
Iron as Fe mg/L 0.58 1.2 3.2 0.68 0.47 4.3
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 0.002 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.003
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.34 0.53 0.072 0.55 2.2 0.081
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.005
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.008 0.010 0.021 0.025 0.005 0.019
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 <0.001 0.003
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001
Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.30 0.46 0.050 0.53 2.0 0.058
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 <0.001 0.004 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 0.003
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.017 0.003 0.004
Group 3 (S) - Major ions
Chloride as Cl-
mg/L 2,200 1,400 1,400 590 1,700 1,000
Sulphur as SO4=
mg/L 130 95 100 56 82 84
Magnesium as Mg mg/L 420 250 130 43 140 59
Potassium as K mg/L 8 4.2 1.6 3.5 5 5.7
Sodium as Na mg/L 350 350 460 270 600 450
Calcium as Ca mg/L 370 250 100 91 240 26
* Measured in the field. SME = Six-monthly event L = low reliability TTV
Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection
Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019) Toxicity DGV (ANZG, 2018)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 33
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Consolidated Data Matrix - Groundwater Sampling Sites - 16 - 17 July 2019 - SME
Parameter Units DGV BH7 BH10A BH10C BH10D BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B
Ecosystem BPLP BNC9O-D BNC9-D BNC9-S WBS-D WBS-S WBN-D WBN-S
Protection 10.1 m 7.8 m 12.4 m 7.0 m 12.4 m 3.0 m 9.5 m 2.8 m
SMD-Tas-H2 1235 1115 1105 1100 0855 0905 0845 0840
Surface Waters 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul
Bore depth m bgl 10.16 7.44 12.39 7.03 12.42 3.03 9.51 2.83
Groundwater depth m bgl 1.49 1.33 2.06 1.33 1.86 1.83 2.19 2.17
Static hydraulic head m bgl 8.67 6.11 10.33 5.7 10.56 1.20 7.32 0.66
Group 1 (Q)
*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 14.8 14.5 13.5 13.4 12.8 11.7 13.2 12.4
*pH 7.1-7.8 nm nm nm nm 6.5 6.8 6.3 6.2
*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 7,250 6,500 8,220 8,300 7,370 6,580 5,700 6,560
TDS mg/L 4,300 3,700 5,100 5,000 4,700 3,900 3,200 3,600
*Redox Potential mV (calomel) nm nm nm nm -5.0 50.5 78.0 79.8
COD mg/L 20 19 24 20 18 16 18 24
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 0.08 0.06 0.68 0.1 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.22
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.07 0.06 0.57 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.19
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 <0.02 <0.02 0.29 <0.02 0.082 <0.02 <0.02 <0.002
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 0.003 <0.003 0.11 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.027
Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 0.003
Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.028 0.023 0.006 <0.005 0.008 0.028 0.010 0.006
Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 0.016 0.022 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.016 0.008 0.006
DOC mg/L 3.8 4.4 6.8 4.0 3.4 3.6 3.2 5.8
Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Group 2 (S) - Total Metals Toxicity DGV
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.008
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.004
Iron as Fe mg/L 0.17 0.31 0.96 0.24 1.9 2.5 0.59 4.0
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.53 0.03 0.94 0.44 1.6 0.32 0.14 1.2
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.002 <0.001 0.005 0.001 <0.001 0.004 0.002 0.006
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.023 0.020 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.022
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L <0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.004 0.001 0.005
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002
Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.51 <0.001 0.89 0.44 1.6 0.26 0.14 1.2
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.004
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.001 0.003 0.014 0.018 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.012
Group 3 (S) - Major ions
Chloride as Cl-
mg/L 2,400 1,900 2,700 2,900 2,500 2,000 1,800 2,200
Sulphur as SO4=
mg/L 180 170 260 180 200 200 170 200
Magnesium as Mg mg/L 320 270 350 440 220 190 130 170
Potassium as K mg/L 3.2 4 10 5 4 2 3 4
Sodium as Na mg/L 780 770 870 780 880 860 820 960
Calcium as Ca mg/L 250 130 290 270 270 140 97 99
* Measured in the field. SME = Six-monthly event L = low reliability TTV
Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection
Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019) Toxicity DGV (ANZG, 2018)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 34
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Consolidated Data Matrix - Groundwater Sampling Sites - 16 - 17 July 2019 - SME
Parameter Units DGV BH18A BH18B BH14A BH14B BH15A BH15B BH23 BH2
Ecosystem URE-D URE-S CSW-D CSW-S CW-D CW-S BNC10 DNW
Protection 34.8 m 19.3 m 24.4 m 11.6 m 29.7 m 13.6 m 15.4 m 11.5 m
SMD-Tas-H2 0730 1530 1245 0800 1320 1310 1125 1200
Surface Waters 17-Jul 16-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul 16-Jul 17-Jul 17-Jul
Bore depth m bgl 34.88 19.30 24.35 11.62 29.68 13.60 15.37 11.56
Groundwater depth m bgl 34.32 17.11 8.53 8.19 15.06 12.80 4.52 0.87
Static hydraulic head m bgl 0.56 2.19 15.82 3.43 14.62 0.80 10.85 10.69
Group 1 (Q) V Low Vol DRY Not purged
*Water temperatureoC 8.0-16.4 13.1 15.2 15.3 13.8 13.9
*pH 7.1-7.8 7.6 nm nm nm nm
*Conductivity µS/cm 850.8 4,310 3,930 5,910 2,472 3,120
TDS mg/L 2,500 2,300 3,400 1,500 2,000
*Redox Potential mV (calomel) -73.2 nm nm nm nm
COD mg/L 23 13 17 9 10
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.726 0.51 0.45 0.07 0.1 0.54
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.35 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.06
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.018 0.017 0.037 <0.002 0.011 <0.02
Nitrate as N mg/L 0.132 0.160 0.29 0.004 <0.003 0.48
Nitrite as N mg/L 0.002 0.005 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.002
Total Phosphorous as P mg/L 0.015 0.023 0.007 <0.005 0.004 0.007
Orthophosphate (reactive) as P mg/L 0.006 <0.003 0.006 <0.003 0.004 0.006
DOC mg/L 6.4 3.5 4.1 2.5 3.1
Total CN as CN mg/L 0.007 (tox) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Group 2 (S) - Total Metals Toxicity DGV
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.020 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 (Cr VI) 0.073 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.006
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 0.45 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001
Iron as Fe mg/L 190 0.84 2.0 0.59 1.30
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 0.040 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 1.7 0.42 0.17 0.19 0.054
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.098 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.002
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.32 0.010 0.006 0.015 0.009
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.37 0.003 <0.001 0.002 0.023
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 0.021 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Group 2 (S) - Soluble Metals Turbid
Arsenic as As mg/L 0.024 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001
Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Copper as Cu mg/L 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Iron as Fe mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Lead as Pb mg/L 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.9 0.23 0.37 0.17 0.18 0.019
Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.00006 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nickel as Ni mg/L 0.011 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001
Selenium as Se mg/L 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Vanadium as V mg/L 0.006L 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.016
Zinc as Zn mg/L 0.008 0.002 0.002 <0.001 0.005 0.002
Group 3 (S) - Major ions
Chloride as Cl-
mg/L 1,400 1,100 2,000 620 840
Sulphur as SO4=
mg/L 58 61 130 27 58
Magnesium as Mg mg/L 120 190 360 110 150
Potassium as K mg/L 10 3.1 6 2.0 3.7
Sodium as Na mg/L 600 280 370 190 270
Calcium as Ca mg/L 280 180 230 120 150
* Measured in the field. SME = Six-monthly event L = low reliability TTV
Bold: Exceeded relevant guideline for ecosystem protection
Physico-chemical Stressors DGV - Tasmania - Hydrological Region 2 (EPA Tas, 2019) Toxicity DGV (ANZG, 2018)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 35
Appendix C: PFAS Results
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 36
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGConsolidated Data Matrix - 16 July 2019 - PFAS: Surface Sites
SS 1 SS4 SS10 SS2 SS14 SS 3 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7
Per &Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) PLP PLP-SP CMLP SSWP SSWP-SP PSWP PSWPD CRT-U/S CRT-D/S
Perfluoroalkane Sulphonic Aids
Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 1.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.20 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoropentane sulphonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 1.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.18 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroheptane sulphonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.32 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorodecane sulphonic acid (PFDS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroalkane Carboxylic Acids
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.30 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 1.1 <0.02 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 2.4 <0.02 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.04 0.04 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.50 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.10 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.75 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.14 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Perfluoroalkyl Sulphonamides
Perfluorooctane sulphonamide (FOSA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Ethly perfluorooctane sulphonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
(n:2) Fluorotelomer Sulphonic Acids
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.33 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Sum of PFAS µg/L 9.18 <0.01 0.12 0.07 1.84 0.09 0.08 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.32 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 1.42 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.22 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.75 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.14 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L 8.80 <0.01 0.10 0.07 1.84 0.09 0.08 <0.01 <0.01
PFAS Detected
Draft ANZECC GL - PFOA: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 220 µg/L
Draft ANZECC GL - PFOS: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 0.13 µg/L
Leachate Ponds Stormwaters and Receiving Waters
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 37
COPPING LANDFILL SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORINGConsolidated Data Matrix - 16/17 July 2019- PFAS: Groundwaters
BH1 BH2 BH7 BH10A BH10C BH10D BH12A BH12B BH13 BH14A BH15A BH18A BH19 BH21 BH23 BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B
Per &Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) CLN DBNW BPLP BNC9O-D BNC9-D BNC9-S BIA-D BIA-S URS CSW-D CW-D URE-D CLW URSW BNC10 WBS-D WBS-S WBN-D WBN-S
Perfluoroalkane Sulphonic Aids
Perfluorobutane sulphonic acid (PFBS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoropentane sulphonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroheptane sulphonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorodecane sulphonic acid (PFDS) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroalkane Carboxylic Acids
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Perfluorooentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Perfluoroalkyl Sulphonamides
Perfluorooctane sulphonamide (FOSA) µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Ethly perfluorooctane sulphonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoethanol µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulphonamidoacetic acid µg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
(n:2) Fluorotelomer Sulphonic Acids
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
10:2 Fluorotelomer sulphonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Sum of PFAS µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
PFAS Detected
Draft ANZECC GL - PFOA: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 220 µg/L Highly Disturbed (90% sp. protection) = 2.0 µg/L Highly Disturbed (80% sp. protection) = 31 µg/L
Draft ANZECC GL - PFOS: Slightly-Moderately Disturbed (95% sp. protection) = 0.13 µg/L
Groundwater Bores - B Groundwater Bores - C
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 38
Appendix D: Site Locations/Descriptions
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 39
CRDS Surface Water Monitoring Site Locations
Site Description Acronym GPS Co-ordinates
(GDA 94)
Surface Sites
SS1 Primary Leachate Pond. PLP S42o50.344’ E147
o45.819’
SS2 Secondary Stormwater Pond (runoff from unused cells). SSWP S42o50.394’ E147
o45.854’
SS3 Primary Stormwater Pond. PSWP S42o50.344’ E147
o45.766’
SS4 Primary Leachate Pond Liner Underdrain Pit (Seepage Pit) PLP-SP S42o50.333’ E147
o45.817’
SS5 Primary Stormwater Pond drain to marsh and the Carlton River Tributary (CRT). PSWPD S42o50.264’ E147
o45.744’
SS6 CRT upstream of discharge from Stormwater Pond and marsh; approx. 340 m upstream of SS7. CRT-U/S S42o50.106’ E147
o45.892’
SS7 CRT downstream of discharge from Stormwater Pond and 25 m downstream of marsh discharge creek. CRT-D/S S42o50.089’ E147
o45.709’
SS8 C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond Seepage Pit. CLBP-SP S42o50.584’ E147
o46.077’
SS9 C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond CLBP S42o50.589’ E147
o46.108’
SS10 C-Cell Main Leachate Pond. CMLP S42o50.599’ E147
o46.154’
SS11 C-Cell Main Leachate Pond Seepage Pit. CMLP-SP S42o50.592’ E147
o46.150’
SS14 Secondary Stormwater Pond Seepage Pit SSWP-SP S42o50.396’ E147
o45.858’
*SS15 Marsh Creek; field measurements recorded when flowing (Tw, pH, EC, TDS) Marsh Ck S42o50.103’ E147
o45.722’
*SS16 Permanent pool just upstream of marsh creek CRT confluence (Tw, pH, EC, TDS) Confl Pool S42o50.198’ E147
o45.736’
* Not sampled routinely
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 40
CRDS Groundwater Monitoring Bores
Site Description Acronym GPS Co-ordinates
(GDA 94)
Upgradient Bores
BH13 Upgradient reference Bore – South; 13.5 m; constructed 2013; just outside of southern CLBP fence line. URS S42o50.648’ E147
o46.088’
BH18A C-Cell Upgradient reference bore East - Deep; 34.8 m WQ monitoring bore; constructed February 2016; slotted 34 – 34.5 m; 20 m E of C-Cell near concrete water tank.
URE-D S42o50.432’ E147
o46.263’
*BH18B C-Cell Upgradient reference bore East - Shallow; 19.3 m (25 mm diam.); same hole as BH18A; constructed February 2016; hydrostatic parameters only.
URE-S S42o50.432’ E147
o46.263’
BH21 South-western Upgradient Bore; 30.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 24.4 – 30.4 m; 90 m SW of BH19. URSW S42o50.677’ E147
o45.987’
BH22 North-eastern Upgradient reference bore; 20 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 14.0 – 20.0 m; located at upgradient of Cells 10-17, 240 m north of C-Cell.
URNE S42o50.263’ E147
o46.188’
Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores
BH24A Wetland bore North – Deep; 12.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 8.4 - 12.4 m; located at southern end of treatment wetland complex, 45 m W of SSWP, 30 m outside W CRDS fence line;.
WBN-D S42o50.459’ E147
o45.835’
BH24B Wetland bore North – Shallow; 3.0 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 1 – 3.0 m; located next to BH24A. WBN-S S42o50.459’ E147
o45.835’
BH25A Wetland Bore South – Deep; 9.5 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 6.5 – 9.5 m; located at northern end of treatment wetland complex, 120 m S of BH24, 50 m outside of W CRDS fence line.
WBS-D S42o50.397’ E147
o45.804’
BH25B Wetland Bore South – Shallow; 2.8 m; constructed February 2019; located next to BH25A. slotted 2 – 2.8 m. WBS-S S42o50.397’ E147
o45.804’
Near B-Cell Groundwater Bores
BH10A Adjacent Cell 9 bore - Deep; 7.8 m; constructed 2011; slotted 3.5 – 7.5 m; located 80 m east of the Secondary Stormwater Pond downgradient of Cell 9, between access road and cell.
BAC9-D S42o50.370’ E147
o45.918’
BH10B Adjacent Cell 9 bore - Shallow; 3 m; constructed 2011, located beside BH10A; no longer in use; to be decommissioned.
BAC9-S S42o50.370’ E147
o45.919’
BH10C Near Cell 9 bore – Deep; 12.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 11.5 - 12.4 m; located 80 m east of SSWP, north of Cell 9 perimeter road.
BNC9-D S42o50.361’ E147
o45.907’
BH10D Near Cell 9 bore – Shallow; 7.0 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 6.0 – 7.0 m; next to BH10C. BNC9-S S42o50.361’ E147
o45.907’
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 41
Site Description Acronym GPS Co-ordinates
(GDA 94)
Near C Cell Groundwater Bores
BH14A C-Cell SW bore - Deep; 24.4 m (originally 21.5 m) WQ monitoring bore; GL raised and extended vertically April 2017; constructed December 2015; slotted 23 – 24 m; SW corner of C Cell.
CSW-D S42o50.509’ E147
o46.192’
*BH14B C-Cell SW bore - Shallow; 11.6 m (originally 9 m) (25 mm diam.), same hole as BH14A; constructed December 2015; hydrostatic parameters only.
CSW-S S42o50.509’ E147
o46.192’
BH15A C-Cell Western bore - Deep; 29.7 m (originally 24 m) WQ monitoring bore; constructed December 2015; GL raised and extended vertically on 3 occasions over 2017/18; slotted 29 – 29.5 m; mid-point of western border of C Cell at edge of B-Cell 4.
CW-D S42o50.451’ E147
o46.143’
BH15B C-Cell Western bore - Shallow; 13.6 m (originally 8.4 m) WQ monitoring bore; constructed December 2015; slotted 13 – 13.5 m; next to BH15A; in temporary perched aquifer.
CW-S S42o50.451’ E147
o46.143’
Near Leachate Pond Groundwater Bores
BH7 Primary Leachate Pond Bore (downgradient bore west); 10 m; constructed 2001; slotted 4 – 10 m; north-west and 50 m downgradient of Primary Leachate Pond.
BPLP S42o50.317’ E147
o45.793’
BH1 C-Cell Leachate pond bore North: Original 23.5 m, 100 mm diameter reference bore; constructed 1996; slotted 1 – 23 m; SE boundary of original site.
CLN S42o50.577’ E147
o46.096’
BH19 C-Cell Leachate pond bore West; 8.4 m; constructed February 2019; slotted 5.5 – 8.4 m; 170 m W of CLBP. CLW S42o50.614’ E147
o46.001’
Outer Groundwater Bores
BH2 North western Downgradient Bore/C-Cell downgradient bore: 11.3 m, constructed July 1996; original 100 mm diameter survey bore; slotted 1 – 11 m; sampling discontinued in 2002. Confirmed operational by AquaSci in 2014. Sampling resumed March 2016; 250 m NE of PLP.
DBNW S42o50.245’ E147
o45.970’
BH12A Irrigation Area bore – Deep; 21.6 m; constructed 2013; slotted 18.5 – 21.5 m; 110 m from western CRDS fence line. BIA-D S42o50.567’ E147o45.848’
BH12B Irrigation Area bore – Shallow; 5.5 m; constructed 2013; slotted 4 – 5.2 m; next to BH12A. BIA-S S42o50.568’ E147o45.848’
BH23 Near Cell10 bore; 15.4; constructed February 2019; slotted 9.4 – 15.4 m; located at western edge of Cell 10 – 17, 105 m SE of BH2.
BNC10 S42o50.284’ E147
o46.025’
* Monitoring of hydrostatic parameters only (25 mm diameter) All bores 50 mm diameter, unless otherwise stated. Suffix: -D = deeper bore of pair -S = shallower bore of pair Prefix: U = Upgradient Bore B = B-Cell Bore C = C-Cell Bore D = Far Downgradient Bore W = Leachate Treatment Wetland Bore
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 42
Appendix E: SS + BH L/N Ratios
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 43
Surface Sites – L/N Ratios
SS 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 8 SS 9 SS10 SS14
2007 May 0.201 0.053 0.050 0.012
Nov 0.232 0.097 0.010 0.012
2008 May 0.247 0.082 0.044 0.026
Dec 0.211 0.096 0.053 0.023
2009 May 0.295 0.111 0.044 0.016
Dec 0.350 0.197 0.064 0.033
2010 Jul 0.456 0.120 0.247 0.067
Dec 0.148 0.101 0.082 0.035
2011 Apr 0.333 0.106 0.075 0.032
Dec 0.300 0.117 0.120 0.026
2012 Apr 0.372 0.133 0.088 0.023
Nov 0.314 0.114 0.058 0.030
2013 May 0.260 0.149 0.098 0.016 0.091 0.129
Sep 0.356 0.156 0.081 0.041 0.023 0.132
Dec 0.322 0.109 0.038 0.033 0.093 0.112
2014 Apr 0.219 0.064 0.042 0.019 0.083 0.116
Jun 0.272 0.093 0.051 0.091 0.256 0.124
Oct 0.300 0.082 0.061 0.091 0.415 0.121
Dec 0.322 0.049 0.051 0.048 0.367 0.112
2015 Jun 0.358 NS-Drained 0.075 0.020 0.153 0.089
Dec 0.248 NS-Drained 0.045 0.021 NS-Dry 0.101 0.095
2016 Jun 0.387 NS-Drained 0.070 0.019 NS-Dry 0.085 0.085
2017 Jan 0.332 NS-Drained 0.048 0.009 NS-Dry 0.089 0.088
Jun 0.355 NS-Drained 0.098 0.010 NS-Dry 0.095 0.086
Dec 0.306 NS-Drained 0.079 NS NS-Dry 0.082 NS-Drained SS2 Drained
2018 Jun 0.382 NS-Drained 0.093 0.005 NS-Dry 0.087 NS-Drained SS2 Drained
Dec 0.241 NS-Drained 0.052 0.003 NS-Dry 0.085 0.220 0.030
2019 Jul 0.355 0.122 0.058 0.003 NS-Dry NS-Drained 0.060 0.036
Dec
*Indicative level for groundwaters
K++NH4
++NOx/Na
+
*Value Indicative of Leachate - 0.1 or greater
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 44
Groundwater Bores – L/N Ratios
BH 1 BH 7 BH10A BH10B BH10C BH10D BH12A BH12B BH13 BH 2 BH 14A BH15A BH15B BH18A
2007 May 0.019 0.004
Nov 0.032 0.004
2008 May 0.026 0.005
Dec 0.026 0.003
2009 May 0.022 0.004
Dec 0.021 0.005
2010 Jul 0.031 0.007
Dec 0.019 0.004
2011 Apr 0.024 0.005
Dec 0.023 0.005 0.032 0.007
2012 Apr 0.024 0.005 0.011 0.012
Nov 0.021 0.005 0.005 0.009
2013 May 0.021 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.190 0.023 0.024
Sep 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.020 0.012 0.014
Dec 0.027 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.014 0.012 0.014
2014 Apr 0.020 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.015 0.011
Jun 0.022 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.018 0.011
Oct 0.020 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.011
Dec 0.020 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.010
2015 Jun 0.017 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.010 0.010
Dec 0.019 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.009 0.015
2016 Jun 0.021 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.075 0.017
2017 Jan 0.020 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.015 0.012 ns ns ns
Jun 0.019 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.016 ns ns ns ns
Dec 0.021 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.016 ns ns ns ns
2018 Jun 0.023 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.011 0.012 0.016 0.013 0.016 NS 0.021
Dec 0.018 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.011 0.013 0.009 0.013 0.019 0.019
2019 Jul 0.023 0.004 0.005 NS 0.012 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.012 0.016 0.012 0.016 NS 0.017
Dec
K++NH4
++NOx/Na
+
Value Indicative of Leachate - 0.1 or higher
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 45
BH19 BH21 BH22 BH23 BH24A BH24B BH25A BH25B
2019 Jul 0.004 0.013 ns 0.011 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.004
Dec
Value Indicative of Leachate - 0.1 or higher
K++NH4
++NOx/Na
+
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 46
Appendix F: Bore Sampling Data
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 47
T001 - COPPING RDS SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
Groundwater Bore Sampling Data - 2019Bore/Date Diameter Depth Water Table Sample Depth Vol Purged Comments
(mm) (m bgl) (m bgl) (m bgl) (L)
B-Cell BoresBH1 Moderate - Rapid recharge
19/03/2019 100 23.19 6.87 18 Nil Not purged - pump motor failed; sampled 19 Mar with bailer; clear
17/07/2019 100 23.00 6.98 18 240 Purged/sampled 17 Jul; pumped well; slight H2S odour; slightly turbid
BH7 Rapid recharge
19/03/2019 50 10.16 1.96 8.5 84 Purged & sampled 19 Mar; pumped well; orange first 12L then clear
17/07/2019 50 10.16 1.49 8.5 84 Purged & sampled 17 Jul; pumped well; turbid first 12L then clear
BH10A Moderate recharge rate; clay on bottom
18-19/03/2018 50 7.44 1.40 6.5 48 Purged 18 Mar, sampled 19 Mar; slightly turbid
16-17/07/2019 50 7.44 1.33 7 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul, sampled 17 Jul; slightly turbid
BH10B
19/03/2019 50 2.89 1.36 2.75 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar, sampled 19 Mar; milky turbid
16-17/07/2019 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A Not Sampled
BH10C
19/03/2019 50 12.53 3.70 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 12.39 2.06 12 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; turbid
BH10D
19/03/2019 50 7.03 1.43 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 7.03 1.33 6.5 P to bottom Purged dry 16 Jul v. quickly; 1st 12L turbid; sampled 17 Jul; unproductive
BH12A Very slow recharge rate
18-19/03/2018 50 21.58 3.59 21 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar, sampled with bailer 19 Mar; slightly turbid
16-17/07/2019 50 21.58 3.57 21 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; slightly turbid as usual
BH12B Very slow recharge rate; copious soft clay on bottom
18-19/03/2018 50 5.18 3.83 Bailed to 5 m P to B Purged 18 Mar, sampled 19 Mar with bailer; very turbid - clay
16-17/07/2019 50 5.17 4.01 Bailed to 5 m P to B Purged 16 Jul; sampeld 17 Jul with bailer; very turbid - clay
BH13 Very slow recharge rate; purges rapidly
18-19/03/2018 50 13.49 7.31 13 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar, sampled with bailer 19 Mar; slightly turbid (milky)
16-17/07/2019 50 13.49 7.33 13 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; slightly turbid (milky) as usual
BH19
19/03/2019 50 8.44 4.39 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 8.44 4.65 7.5 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; mod. turbid
BH21
19/03/2019 50 30.47 10.64 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 30.47 10.20 29 120 Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; productive
BH22
19/03/2019 50 19.95 12.58 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A Not sampled - inaccessible (earthworks/mud)
BH23
19/03/2019 50 15.37 4.91 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 15.37 4.52 14 Not purged Surrounded by wet clay; sampled 17 Jul on foot with bailer
P = purged B = Bottom Vac = Vacuumed
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 48
T001 - COPPING RDS SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
Groundwater Bore Sampling DataBore/Date Diameter Depth Water Table Sample Depth Vol Purged Comments
(mm) (m bgl) (m bgl) (m bgl) (L)
Wetland BoresBH24A
19/03/2019 50 12.45 1.93 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 12.42 1.86 11 72 Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; productive
BH24B
19/03/2019 50 3.04 1.96 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 3.03 1.83 3 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; turbid
BH25A
19/03/2019 50 9.51 2.26 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 9.51 2.19 8.5 48 Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; productive; samples clear
BH25B
19/03/2019 50 2.83 2.24 N/A N/A Newly constructed: only water levels measured
16-17/07/2019 50 2.83 2.17 2.8 P to bottom Purged 16 Jul; sampled 17 Jul; turbid
C-Cell BoresBH2 Moderate - rapid recharge
19/03/2019 100 11.56 1.26 10.5 130 Partly purged - pump motor failed; sampled 19 Mar; milky turbid
17/07/2019 100 11.56 0.87 10.5 240 Purged/sampled 17 Jul; clear early, becoming milky turbid as pumped
BH14A Slow recharge rate
18-19/03/2018 50 24.35 8.97 23.5 P to bottom Purged 18 Mar: sampled with bailer 19 Mar; slightly turbid; H2S
17/07/2019 50 24.35 8.53 P to bottom Access issues; purged am and sampled pm 17 Jul; H2S odour; mod turbid
BH15A Rapid recharge
19/03/2019 50 29.67 15.33 29.0 Nil Not purged - pump motor failed; sampled 19 Mar with bailer; clear
16-17/07/2019 50 29.68 15.06 28.5 96 Purged/sampled 17 Jul; turbid; H2S odour; surrounded by rubbish
BH15B Temporary perched aquifer - rainfall recharge only
18-19/03/2018 50 13.62 13.18 N/A N/A Insufficient water to sample
16-17/07/2019 50 13.60 12.80 N/A N/A Insufficient water to sample; surrounded by garbage
BH18A Very little recharge
19/03/2019 50 34.69 34.02 34.5 P to bottom All water removed 19 Mar with bailer; very low recharge volume; grey-turbid
17/07/2019 50 34.88 34.32 34.5 P to bottom All water removed 17 Jul with bailer; very low recharge volume; grey, very turbid
P = purged B = Bottom Vac = Vacuumed
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 49
Appendix G: Site Photos 16/17 July 2019
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 50
SS1: Primary Leachate Pond
SS3 Primary Stormwater Pond and Spillway
SS4: Primary Leachate Pond – Seepage Pit
SS5: Primary Stormwater Pond Drain
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 51
SS6: CRT Upstream Reference Site
Marsh Creek SS7: CRT Downstream Site
SS9: C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond SS8: C-Cell Leachate Balancing Pond Seepage Pit
SS14: Secondary Stormwater Pond Seepage Pit
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 52
SS2: Secondary Stormwater Pond SS10: C-Cell Main Leachate Pond
SS11: C-Cell Main Leachate Pond Seepage Pit
BH1: Leachate Holding Pond Bore BH2: North-western Downgradient Bore
BH7: PLP Downgradient Bore BH10A, 10B: Near Cell 9 Bores (old) (18 March)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 53
BH10C, 10D: Near Cell 9 Bores (29 May) BH12A, 12B: Irrigation Area Bores
BH13: Southern Upgradient Reference Bore BH14A, 14B: C-Cell South-western Bores
BH15A, 15B: C-Cell Western Bores BH18A, 18B: Eastern Upgradient Reference Bore
BH19: C-Cell Leachate Pond Western Bore BH21: North-eastern Upgradient Reference Bore (29 May)
Copping RDS SGWMP Six-monthly Report, July 2019 54
BH22: North-eastern Upgradient Reference Bore (29 May) BH23: Near Cell 10 Bore
BH24A, 24B: Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores North BH25A, 25B: Leachate Treatment Wetland Bores South